Bazin writes that photography "has freed Western painting, once and for all, from its obsession with realism and allowed it to recover its aesthetic autonomy"(361). Has photography made realism in painting obsolete or archaic?
- Representation is no longer the justification for painting.
- Photography isn't necessarily the ultimate form of representation. Kracauer points out the shortcomings of photography in imitating reality.
- Photo realistic works of art are not devalued by the invention of photography.
Kracauer draws parallels between photography and fashion: "Photography is bound to time in precisely the same way as
fashion. Since the latter has no significance other than as current human garb, it is translucent when modern and abandoned when old"(368). Do you agree? Is this statement unique to photography?
- Paintings can also be bound to time. Futurist or Constructivist paintings would not have nearly the same effect on an audience today as they did when they were first painted. The political implications of a futurist painting are outdated, and colored squares would not be a shocking insult to artistic ideals.
According to Kracauer, "The photograph annihilates the person by portraying him or her, and were person and portrayal to converge, the person would cease to exist" (369). What does this mean?
- photos are like... antimatter?
- ???
No comments:
Post a Comment